93 Decision Citation: BVA 93-13562
Y93
BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420
DOCKET NO. 91-12 936 ) DATE
)
)
)
THE ISSUES
Entitlement to service connection for pyelonephritis.
Entitlement to service connection for varicose veins.
Entitlement to service connection for venous thrombosis.
Entitlement to service connection for amenorrhea.
Entitlement to service connection for a chest disorder,
including bronchitis.
Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a right
shoulder injury.
Entitlement to service connection for residuals of right
ankle sprain.
Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a right
hand injury.
Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a right
toe injury.
Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a right
knee sprain.
Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a left
knee injury.
Entitlement to service connection for residuals of an
urinary tract infection.
Entitlement to service connection for a chronic ear disorder.
Entitlement to service connection for sinusitis.
Entitlement to service connection for hypertension.
Entitlement to service connection for defective hearing.
Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder.
Entitlement to an increased rating for endometriosis,
currently evaluated as 30 percent disabling.
Entitlement to an increased (compensable) disability
evaluation for residuals of cryotherapy for uterine cervical
dysplasia.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: The American Legion
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
R. M. Yonemoto, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(hereinafter Board) on appeal from rating decisions of May
and September 1989, September 1990 and March 1992, from the
St. Petersburg, Florida, Regional Office (hereinafter RO).
The veteran had active service from June 1985 to July 1988.
A notice of disagreement was received in November 1989. A
statement of the case was issued in January 1990. A sub-
stantive appeal was received in August 1990. Supplemental
statements of the case were issued in October and November
1990. Another substantive appeal was received in February
1991. The case was initially received at the Board in
February 1991. In November 1991, the Board remanded the
case for further development. A supplemental statement of
the case was issued in April 1992. The case was returned to
the Board in July 1992, and the appeal was docketed in the
same month. A written presentation was made in November
1992 by The American Legion, the veteran's accredited
representative.
REMAND
In November 1991, the Board remanded the case because the
dates of the veteran's active service were unclear. In
response to the remand, the RO requested clarification and
verification of the veteran's active service from the
National Personnel Records Center. His active service was
verified to be from June 1985 to July 1988. It is also clear
from the record that the veteran was a reservist who served
on active duty for training from December 1983 to March
1984. Other periods of active duty for training and periods
of inactive duty for training are currently unclear from the
claims folder. Significantly, the service medical records
show that in December 1983 the veteran complained of chest
pain and breathing difficulties and that he sustained a
right knee sprain in January 1984. Moreover, there are
other service medical records dated prior to June 1985. We
also observe that the statements of the case and supple-
mental statements of the case do not contain the law and
regulations pertaining to active or inactive duty for
training.
In view of the foregoing, the case is again REMANDED to the
RO for the following actions:
1. The RO should obtain verification
of all periods of the veteran's active
and inactive duty for training and
adjudicate the claims for service
connection on a basis encompassing such
service. The veteran should be
requested to assist in this matter.
2. If the benefits sought remain
denied, a supplemental statement of the
case containing the applicable law and
regulations, and a discussion pertaining
to claims for service connection for
the claimed disabilities on the basis
that they were incurred or aggravated
on active or inactive duty for training
should be furnished the veteran and his
representative.
When the above development is completed, the veteran and his
representative should be afforded a reasonable opportunity
to respond to the supplemental statement of the case.
Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for
further appellate consideration, if in order. No action is
required on the veteran's part until he is notified. The
purposes of this REMAND are to satisfy due process require-
ments and to obtain clarifying information.
BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420
*
GEORGE R. SENYK
BRUCE E. HYMAN
(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
*38 U.S.C.A. § 7102(a)(2)(A) (West 1991) permits a Board of
Veterans' Appeals Section, upon direction of the Chairman of
the Board, to proceed with the transaction of business
without awaiting assignment of an additional Member to the
Section when the Section is composed of fewer than three
Members due to absence of a Member, vacancy on the Board or
inability of the Member assigned to the Section to serve on
the panel. The Chairman has directed that the Section
proceed with the transaction of business, including the
issuance of decisions, without awaiting the assignment of a
third Member.
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United
States Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the
nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a
decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal.
38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1992).